Christianity without Consequences

[foolsparade]

Outspoken, you must know only the "bad" non-christians. Most Christians I know are just as human as me, and to imply that non-Christians tell more lies, and watch more porno is down right silly. I admit I have lustful thoughts at times, so you want your religion to control everything including thoughts? You live in a fantasy world. So outspoken you do not sin at all? you live an absolutely perfect life? You make every decision correctly and you spend every waking minute helping others? are you without sin??

 

[duster1az]

tcampen writes: "why should a truely good person who lived a more moral life than most saved christians suffer the same consequences as Hitler (assuming he was not saved just prior to his death, of course)?"

Though man possesses a sin nature and does sin as a result of that nature, in this age, which is bounded by the two advents of chirst, they are considered lost because of a decree that God made concerning all who live on the earth. "What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;...(Romans 3:9). "But the Scripture has shut up all men under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe" (Gal. 3:22).

The phrase "under sin" means that God will not accept the merit of any person as a contributing factor in their salvation. The decree, that eliminates all human merit, is essential if salvation is to be by grace.

This doesn't imply that a good life is of no value in its place; but the issue is the problem of how a holy God can save those who are lost. He disregards what men deem to be good, and some do possess more goodness than others, so He can replace it with the perfection of Christ.

In Christ,
Tracey

 

[Outspoken]

Outspoken, you must know only the "bad" non-christians. Most Christians I know are just as human as me, and to imply that non-Christians tell more lies, and watch more porno is down right silly. I admit I have lustful thoughts at times, so you want your religion to control everything including thoughts? You live in a fantasy world. So outspoken you do not sin at all? you live an absolutely perfect life? You make every decision correctly and you spend every waking minute helping others? are you without sin??

Umm..I think you have misunderstood me. I said that christians do sin, I agree, but for the majority, nonchristians I know think its okay to read maxim, look at porno, tell white lies when it doesn't hurt anyone, things like that. I didn't say they involve in it MORE, I said they find it acceptable (ie not a sin). I don't live in a fantasy world foolsparade. Just as a great man said once, you can't keep a bird from flying over your head, but you can keep it from making a nest in your hair. Please do not dramatize my statements, I never said any Christian including myself was without sin, Christians just have theirs paid for and nonchristians don't. Please don't read into my post.

 

[tcampen]

"I would disagree because our definitions are different. Morality is defined by God and includes many things most nonchristians I know find okay to do. Some of these include, but are not limited to, lustful thoughts, white lies, porno, etc...."

I'm not sure whether considering certian acts sins or not is relevant if those acts are committed with the same frequency by christians and non-christians alike. There is no proof christains sin against god's will any more or less than the rest of the population, apart from anecdotal evidence.

Furthermore, while the christian and non-christian may have disagreements on what is a sin, so do christians among themselves. Here's an easy example - alcohol. Many denominations clearly think its a sin to ingest any amount of alcohol for any purpose, whereas others drink wine as part of their religious observance (let alone moderate, social drinking). Both are saved christians, yet both have opposite views on whether the act is a sin against God. They both can't be right. This is but one example, which ranges from the benign to the extreme - the list goes on and on.

"I would say motivation. The christian should, if strong in their christian walk, have no desire to commit sin. This is addressed in romans 8."

Desire, or intent to do the act, is a necessary element to the commission of a sin. The act, coupled with that intent, is either a sin or it is not. But since there is divergence among christians themselves as to what constitutes a sin to begin with, it seems like this can be easy standard to meet. For example, if I wanted to be a saved christian, but still enjoy a beer on a hot summer day, then I'd be better off a Catholic than a GRB Baptist, wouldn't I? As a Catholic, there wouldn't be anything wrong with having a beer, let alone the desire to drink one.

"Because just because it is "paid for" doesn't make it any less immoral."

I take this to mean you disagree with Lewis' statement that immoral acts require a consequence in order for it to be immoral at all. For example, if there was a person designated to go to jail for me if I broke the law, is it still accurate to say there are any real consequences to me for doing that which is wrong? I understand the salvation concept, but saying Jesus suffered the consequences for others' sins is in direct refutation of Lewis' statement about the very nature of morality from God.

In other words, an act is immoral according to god just because he says so, and even tho the individual who committed the act will never suffer any consequence from God for committing that act? Or another way...what does God do to those who commit sins? If he does nothing, then is the act a sin just because god proclaims it to be so?

 

[Outspoken]

"I'm not sure whether considering certian acts sins or not is relevant if those acts are committed with the same frequency by christians and non-christians alike. "


i don't see how this relates to your orginal question, so I'll try to get us back on track.

"The act, coupled with that intent, is either a sin or it is not. But since there is divergence among christians themselves as to what constitutes a sin to begin with, it seems like this can be easy standard to meet."

I disagree. Its the act and/or the intent. Christ clearly shows us that intent can be a sin as well.

"In other words, an act is immoral according to god just because he says so, and even tho the individual who committed the act will never suffer any consequence from God for committing that act? "

I've answered this already. All sin has a consequence, and all of it is taken out, weather on Christ for the christian, or on him/herself for the nonchristian.

 

[tcampen]

tcampen: "In other words, an act is immoral according to god just because he says so, and even tho the individual who committed the act will never suffer any consequence from God for committing that act? "

I've answered this already. All sin has a consequence, and all of it is taken out, weather on Christ for the christian, or on him/herself for the nonchristian.

I understand that clearly. But just so we are on the same page, this means that the Christian will not personally suffer any consequence for their sins in the afterlife, right? If this is the case, then Lewis' statement implying that morality requires divine consequences directly to the individual in order to establish its morality would be an incorrect statement, right?

 

[Hunose]

So where's the consequences of doing a morally wrong act if salvation gets you into heaven anyway? The bible (as far as I know) doesn't talk about any "consequences" the saved person must endure for the sins and morally wrong acts committed while on Earth.

I respectfully have to disagree with the many attempts of others at reconciling this "dilemma" for you. I disagree also that "the bible doesn't talk about any consequences the saved person must endure for the sins and morally wrong acts committed while on Earth." According to Jesus, "I say to you, that every careless word that men shall speak, they shall render account for it in the day of judgment" (Matt 12:36). While some would like to suggest "no consequence Christianity" (perhaps even the majority today), Paul agrees with Jesus: "We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad" (2 Cor 5:10).

I don't have all the answers or explanations. I can't say, for instance, what "recompensed for his deeds" actually entails, but it clearly includes "whether good or bad", so it isn't (as some claim) merely a matter of rewards or not. I think that Christians do themselves a dangerous disservice when they minimize the very clear fact that there will be consequences.

 

[Outspoken]

I understand that clearly. But just so we are on the same page, this means that the Christian will not personally suffer any consequence for their sins in the afterlife, right? If this is the case, then Lewis' statement implying that morality requires divine consequences directly to the individual in order to establish its morality would be an incorrect statement, right?

No I think you might have it wrong. The consequence is still to the individual, but paid through by Christ. The point made by Lewis is still there, there is a consequnce from the action.

 

[vajradhara]

I respectfully have to disagree with the many attempts of others at reconciling this "dilemma" for you. I disagree also that "the bible doesn't talk about any consequences the saved person must endure for the sins and morally wrong acts committed while on Earth." According to Jesus, "I say to you, that every careless word that men shall speak, they shall render account for it in the day of judgment" (Matt 12:36). While some would like to suggest "no consequence Christianity" (perhaps even the majority today), Paul agrees with Jesus: "We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad" (2 Cor 5:10).

I don't have all the answers or explanations. I can't say, for instance, what "recompensed for his deeds" actually entails, but it clearly includes "whether good or bad", so it isn't (as some claim) merely a matter of rewards or not. I think that Christians do themselves a dangerous disservice when they minimize the very clear fact that there will be consequences.

Namaste Hunose,

wonderful post! thank you very much

 

[tcampen]

I respectfully have to disagree with the many attempts of others at reconciling this "dilemma" for you. I disagree also that "the bible doesn't talk about any consequences the saved person must endure for the sins and morally wrong acts committed while on Earth." According to Jesus, "I say to you, that every careless word that men shall speak, they shall render account for it in the day of judgment" (Matt 12:36). While some would like to suggest "no consequence Christianity" (perhaps even the majority today), Paul agrees with Jesus: "We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad" (2 Cor 5:10).

I don't have all the answers or explanations. I can't say, for instance, what "recompensed for his deeds" actually entails, but it clearly includes "whether good or bad", so it isn't (as some claim) merely a matter of rewards or not. I think that Christians do themselves a dangerous disservice when they minimize the very clear fact that there will be consequences.

Hunose, your analysis provides a more internally consistent interpretation of the bible and god's authority for morality. You are the first I'm aware of to provide a coherent answer to this dilemma. Thank you for your insight.